Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 05 Nov 2003 14:02:49 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: get_cycles() on i386 |
| |
Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> On 4 Nov 2003, john stultz wrote: >> >>> CONFIG_X86_TSC be the devil. Personally, I'd much prefer dropping the >>> compile time option and using dynamic detection. Something like (not >>> recently tested and i believe against 2.5.something, but you get the >>> idea): >>> >> >> Some of the users are really timing-critical (eg scheduler). >> > > The scheduler uses its own sched_clock which only gives jiffies > resolution if CONFIG_NUMA is defined. Unfortunate because I think > its interactive behaviour isn't so good with ms resolution. > > The scheduler does not need to have synchronised TSCs though, I think. > It just means 2 more calls to sched_clock in a slow path (smp migration). > Well no, its much trickier than that I think :(
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |